Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
X-bar theory
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Hierarchical structure == The PSR has the shortcoming of being incapable of capturing sentence ambiguities. * I saw a man with binoculars.<ref name="binos">{{Cite web |author= |url=https://www.bu.edu/linguistics/ug/course/lx522-f05/lx522/archives/16.html|title=Syntax I|website= |publisher= |date= |accessdate=2021-10-23}}</ref> This sentence is ambiguous between the reading ''I saw a man, using binoculars'', in which ''with binoculars'' modifies the VP, and the reading ''I saw a man who had binoculars'', in which the PP modifies the NP.<ref name="binos" /> Under the PSR model, the sentence above is subject to the following two parsing rules. * S β NP VP * VP β V NP PP The sentence's structure under these PSRs would be as in Figure 13. [[File:The_PSR_structure_of_"I_saw_a_man_with_binoculars".png|thumb|none|500px|Figure 13]] It is obvious that this structure fails to capture the NP modification reading because [<sub>PP</sub> with binoculars] modifies the VP no matter how one tries to illustrate the structure. The X-bar theory, however, successfully captures the ambiguity as demonstrated in the configurations in Figure 14 and 15 below, because it assumes hierarchical structures in accordance with the binarity principle. {{multiple image |align=left |total_width = 800 |image1=The_X-bar_structure_of_"I_saw_a_man_with_binoculars"1.png |caption1=Figure14 |image2=The_X-bar_structure_of_"I_saw_a_man_with_binoculars"2-revised.png |caption2=Figure15 }}{{-}} Thus, the X-bar theory resolves the fourth issue mentioned in {{Section link||Background}} as well. There is always a unilateral relation from syntax to semantics (never from semantics to syntax) in any version of [[generative grammar]] because syntactic computation starts from the [[lexicon]], then continues into the syntax, then into [[Logical form (linguistics)|Logical Form]] (LF) at which meanings are computed. This is so under any of [[Standard Theory]] (Chomsky, 1965<ref name="C65" />), [[Extended standard theory|Extended Standard Theory]] (Chomsky, 1972<ref name="C72">{{Cite book |last=Chomsky|first=Noam|authorlink= |title=Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar|publisher=Mouton|location=The Hague|language= |year=1972|page= |id= |isbn= |quote= }}</ref>), and [[Revised extended standard theory|Revised Extended Standard Theory]] (Chomsky, 1981<ref name="C81" />).
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)